Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:41:30 -0400
From: Jeff Roberts <thejoker@MIT.EDU>
To: advise-feedback@mit.edu, madmatt@mit.edu
Subject: Unified Response

*Warning: This is long.  Read it at your convenience.

Dear all you guys,

        I perused the web site and thought I'd send you a letter instead of
trying to find you all and talk to you about what I think of all this.  Let
me start out by saying that I think you're on the right track with this
thing, and if at all possible I would like to involve myself in the project.
For those of you who don't know me, my name's Jeff Roberts, I'm a sophomore
in Urban Studies and Planning, I'm on the Founder's Group for the new
ungergrad residence, and ... well, most of you know me and those who don't
can easily ask others.  Of course, if you really don't want or need my help,
you can tell me to shove off and I'll be fine with it.  But read my
comments, though they are long, and hopefully they'll be of some help.

        The working document I read, though much longer than the RSSC
proposal, seems to me to be very similar in nature:  It is a collection of
ideas from varied parts of the community thrown together into a loose
framework to create a mosaic-like representation of a residence system.  I
admit that the ideas in the document are very good, probably better than
those proposed by the RSSC.  However, contrary to its name, this "unified
response" seems to lack unity.  This document has some convincing arguments
in it, but to be especially convincing it needs some sort of "vision",
something else which the RSSC proposal lacked.  I'll explain what I mean
(some of this may be familiar to those of you who participated in the
seminars on architecturing systems which accompanied the IAP design contest).

        The RSSC proposal set some goals.  These goals were too specific
(for example, eliminating crowding) and the list was far too long (I stopped
reading after a couple pages of it) for all of them to be seriously
addressed.  The goals of the residence system should be more interpretive,
more philosophical if you will; it is in the details of the system where the
decision to eliminate crowding is made, or where the idea of incorporating
education into residence life is evaluated.  The goals of the system should
probably be a reflection of the Task Force Report, but must be adapted to
the partuclar situation of the residence system (or any other subset of
"student life") and should be taken as a few, broad goals instead of a long
list of specifics.  Goals should also probably be long-term.  Another point
is that both documents (RSSC and Unified Response) focus on the
Undergraduate Residence System but touches areas such as Grad Housing and
other related topics.  The first problem with creating a system is to create
some sort of boundaries for it and then cover everything thoroughly; if grad
housing is to be involved, it should be all or nothing.  Adding grad housing
issues means discussion of the graduate residence system as a whole and
establishing a set of goals for it, too.  There seem to be many people in
this group with a strong interest in the grad system, and I suggest they
look into what kinds of long-term goals they really want to set for it.

        The next thing I'd like to mention is something that is absent from
both documents:  An evaluation of the current system.  It needs to be
established that the current system does not meet the goals set for it.
Essentially, a problem has to be identified, and yes, even if the problem
boils down to the simple fact that we have to accomodate an entire class of
freshmen on campus in 2001, it needs to be stated clearly in the report.
You can't propose a new system without citing imperfections in the old.
This shouldn't be too hard, but it needs to be done to lend credibility to
the process.

        After it has been established that a new system is necessary comes
the most important step:  The concept.  This should be the unifying ground
on which the design is founded.  What the Unified Response seems like to me
right now is a tree without roots.  There are ideas branching out all over
the place, but nothing which clearly brings those ideas together and
effetively defines the system.  This is also probably the most fun part, to
me at least, and if it is a strong enough concept the design should be very
convincing.  It seems to me, from reading the material, that the concept
that you're really going for is one which is a student-directed,
faculty-supported, staff-administered system, an idea which I peronally
think is very workable at MIT.  Of course, it probably needs more explaining
that that.  Some thought needs to be put into the exact concept, but when it
finally comes out I would imagine it'll be a damn good one.

        Next comes the part where all the ideas you've had come together.
This is the meat of the report and you already seem to be doing a pretty
good job with it so I won't make any further reccomendations there.

        Finally, to make the design complete, the structure of the system
should be compared to the goals to show how well it achieves them.  It might
not be perfect, but even if it's not its imperfections should be noted.
This also shouldn't be too hard, and once everything falls together it
should become apparent how to relate the final output of the design back to
the ideas which drove its construction in the first place.

        So there's my take.  I wasn't meaning to be patronizing in any way
and I'm sorry if it came out like that.  Whether or not you would like my
help in this process, I hope you take these comments into consideration when
you come up with your final report and I will look forward to seeing this
when it's complete.

        For those of you who made it this far down in the letter, I commend
you.  Thanks.
						Jeff